<<Print>>

Private legal practitioner, Kwame Akuffo has rejected claims by political analysts that NPP’s affirmative action is unconstitutional, saying the position is rather “refreshing and proper”.

According to Mr. Akuffo, the decision by the NPP to reserve for women, the party’s 16 seats in parliament occupied by women is rather a “positive discrimination” and within the domain of the constitution.

Yesterday’s national executive committee’s resolution has been greeted with pockets of demonstrations by party supporters nationwide. They are demanding the party’s hierarchy reconsider its decision, in spite of explanation by the NPP’s communications director that consultation would be used to win over men who want to contest those seats. Nana Akomea was categorical that persons who insist would not be barred from contesting.

Many political pundits said the decision is not only unconstitutional but experimental and suicidal.

However, Mr. Kwame Akuffo told Joy News he “rejects that argument in its entirety”.

Many suggest the party’s position is an affront to Article 17 (2) under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution which stipulates that “A persons shall not be discriminated against on grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed or social or economic status.”

Nonetheless, there is nothing unconstitutional in doing something to improve women representation in public office, Mr. Akuffo argued.

If the affirmative action is considered unconstitutional, he maintained, then policies such as the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority (SADA) in which national resources are channelled purposely to develop the three northern regions could also be described as unconstitutional.

The lawyer also mntioned cases where universities reserve a quota specifically for female enrolment, which he cited as being positive discrimination.

In his opinion, what the executives did was “a reasonable step” to shore up women participation in a “male dominated consecutive society”.

Lawyer and gender activist, Gloria Ofori Boadu contested claims that the decision is suicidal and a death wish, describing the arguments as sad.

She said although the decision was a “positive step… it is even not good enough”, and wished the party had gone further to take  decisions that will improve and protect women participation in politics.